Justin Ohara

Case Study

In Search of Equilibrium

The increasing prevalence of stringent security measures in various aspects of

American life has led to a phenomenon often likened to the security protocols employed

at airports. These measures encompass a broad spectrum, ranging from the

proliferation of checkpoints and intensified bag inspections to the implementation of

metal detectors, body scanners, and more thorough physical searches. To illustrate this

trend, one can consider the aftermath of the tragic Parkland shooting incident. In

response to the tragedy, Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School enforced a policy that

mandated students to use transparent backpacks, thereby forgoing their basic right to

personal privacy when carrying everyday items such as books and medications. This

decision, emblematic of the broader shift towards heightened security, highlights the

delicate balance between individual privacy and safety concerns in contemporary

American society. While enhancing security is undoubtedly crucial, the "airportization" of

daily life (Stanley, 2018) raises important questions about how much personal privacy

individuals should be willing to relinquish in the pursuit of safety and security.

Not only there has been an increase in physical searches, but also in

cybersecurity. In the ongoing debate over government surveillance and the USA

Freedom Act, there is a curious juxtaposition between the perceived necessity of mass

data collection and the erosion of civil liberties. Some members of Congress seem to

believe that allowing agencies like the National Security Agency (NSA) to collect phone

records, even those of innocent citizens, is crucial for national security. However, this
perspective is not universally shared, even within the NSA itself. The bill, which recently

passed the House with a strong majority, represents an effort to rein in what many see

as overreach in government surveillance. This debate has split Republicans into two

factions, pitting libertarians who advocate for curtailing or ending the program against

security hawks who wish to maintain it. Senator Mitch McConnell and Senator Rand

Paul, both from Kentucky, exemplify this divide. The essence of the argument lies in

striking a balance between national security and civil liberties, a balance that many

believe has been lost in recent years. This debate resonates with historical episodes

where fear led to actions that challenged American principles, and in today's context,

passing the USA Freedom Act is seen as a step toward restoring that equilibrium

(Haynes, 2015).

The COVID-19 pandemic has seen governments using the crisis as a pretext to

restrict human rights and freedoms, risking a lasting erosion of these essential values.

Amid the global response to the COVID-19 pandemic, governments have leveraged the

crisis to curtail human rights and freedoms, potentially leading to a protracted erosion of

these vital principles. As seen in Russia, where restrictions on free assembly coincided

with President Putin's bid for an extended term, and through the use of censorship in

countries like Iran and China to control information, governments are capitalizing on the

situation for political purposes. Surveillance capabilities are also expanding, such as

China's health status app and Moscow's enduring facial recognition system. Even in

liberal democracies, there's a danger of normalizing emergency measures. As Funk

(2020) warns, "If governments are allowed to impose indefinite and disproportionate

restrictions on access to information, free expression, free assembly, and privacy in the
name of stopping COVID-19, the negative effects will extend far beyond this outbreak.

People will suffer a lasting deterioration in basic freedoms, and they will lose confidence

in the institutions tasked with protecting them." (para.10).

In the wake of the tragic events of September 11, 2001, the American people

were faced with the imperative of striking a delicate balance between enhancing

national security and safeguarding the cherished liberties that define the American way

of life. The collective mourning for the innocent lives lost in the brutal assault on that

fateful day was accompanied by a resolute call for accountability for the perpetrators. As

the nation grappled with the need to prevent future terrorist attacks, a critical and

deliberate examination of proposed measures became paramount. The commitment to

upholding democratic principles, accountable government, and international law while

preserving the Constitution's integrity underscored the collective resolve. Amidst this

challenging period, the call for unity in reconciling security requirements with the

preservation of civil liberties remained steadfast, emphasizing the importance of

resisting hasty, broad, and potentially discriminatory actions. The affirmation of the right

to peaceful dissent and the encouragement of political leaders who championed the

cause of preserving freedoms echoed the unwavering faith in the democratic system's

capacity to protect both security and liberty for all Americans (ACLU, 2001).

However, in the middle of this debate over the balance between freedom and

security, a study co-sponsored by The Gallup Organization and The University of

Oklahoma Department of Psychiatry, funded by the Oklahoma City National Memorial

Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism (MIPT), reveals that nearly four in five

Americans (78%) are willing to sacrifice certain freedoms in exchange for enhanced
security in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks. The study also highlights

specific areas where Americans are willing to compromise, including easier access to

private communications for legal authorities, mandatory national identification cards,

and smallpox vaccinations for all residents. The findings suggest that heightened

security concerns have led to a willingness to trade certain liberties for safety, with New

Yorkers, in particular, reporting a notable shift in their sense of safety following the

attacks. The study underscores the enduring importance of balancing freedom and

security in the face of ongoing terrorism threats (Christiansen, 2002).

In addition to the topics discussed above, the core value of compromise,

emphasizes the need for finding a middle ground when seeking a balance between

freedom and security. During more challenging times, such as right after a terrorist

attack or a school shooting, security measures should be reinforced to provide

reassurance to the public, gradually allowing society to regain its sense of freedom as

the authorities scaleback their security searches.

In conclusion, the delicate equilibrium between safeguarding individual freedoms

and enhancing security measures has been a central theme in recent years. This

Balance has been underscored by events like the September 11 attacks, evolving

cybersecurity debates, and the current global response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

These challenges force societies to grapple with the ever-evolving definition of personal

privacy and the extent to which individuals are willing to relinquish certain freedoms in

the name of safety. Consequently, the resounding message throughout these

discussions is the necessity of finding a balance that respects civil liberties while

addressing legitimate security concerns. Moreover, it is essential to remember that the

values of democracy, accountability, and the protection of human rights remain the

bedrock of any just and secure society. As we navigate these complex waters, the

enduring commitment to upholding these principles and striking that balance remains

paramount in ensuring both freedom and security for all.

References

Jay Stanley (2018) A Pro-Liberty Case for Gun Restriction

https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/pro-liberty-case-gun-restrictions

David D. Haynes (2015) Liberty vs. security: An old debate renewed in the age of terror

https://archive.jsonline.com/news/opinion/liberty-vs-security-an-old-debate-renewed-in-t

he-age-of-terror-b99500066z1-303775951.html/

Allie Funk & Isabel Linzer (2020) How the coronavirus could trigger a backslide on

freedom around the world

https://www.proquest.com/docview/2377836585?accountid=14580&forcedol=true&pare

ntSessionId=IxmTPysk4YPaSSXbKIXrmYRu92EENl0cspzqDbaQi%2BI%3D&parentSe

ssionId=XqLtvIQyEiRf77Dwc%2FpFJ%2FYvk9MNEhP3aiWv1akINTk%3D

Document, ACLU (2001) In Defense of Freedom at a Time of Crisis

https://www.aclu.org/documents/defense-freedom-time-crisis

Elaine Christiansen (2002) Which Freedoms Will Americans Trade for Security?

https://news.gallup.com/poll/6196/which-freedoms-will-americans-trade-security.aspx